1. I do agree with the court decision in the Florida V. Jardines cases that a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. The reason why I agree is because the police had no probable cause to search Jardines home in the first place. The only information they had about Jardines home was the unverified tip they received stating marijuana was being grown in his home. That alone is not enough for a search warrant. An unverified tip is not considered valid information. Anybody could have called that tip in. It could have been someone who was trying to set Jardines up. So with the little bit of information that the police had they decided to intrude upon Jardines front porch without any permission or justification. That is totally unacceptable.
2. It all depends if the police actions would constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. The police do have the right to question citizens as long as the citizens want to talk to …show more content…
I do think that Jones and Jardines have affected the continue validity of Caballes as good law. Especially, in the Jardines case it could become confusing to some people. The reason why is because the Supreme Court is stating that the Jardiness case falls under the Fourth Amendment search. In this case the canine was sniffing around on Jardines porch and the canine discovered sometime of drug odor. Then in the Caballes court the canine dog was sniffing around someone vehicle and it did not fall under the Fourth Amendment search. The reason for that is someone porch is private property so you have to have permission or justification to be on their property. On the other hand, vehicles drive on city property. So as long as the vehicle is on city property and the canine is smelling outside of the vehicle and not inside there is no problems. If the canine starts smelling inside of the vehicle then that would lead to a Fourth Amendment search because the canine doesn’t have permission or justification to search someone vehicle without probable